There are a few more options for breaking rule 5 other than the one you've quoted, and it's possible that the original article has misrepresented the grounds of his prosecution.
For example the first (and arguably most important) part of rule 5 demands that an a/c shall not be flown below such height as would enable it, in the event of a power unit failure, to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons or property on the surface.
Unfortunately the only thing that can exempt you from this rule is taking off from, landing, at or practising approaches to landing at or checking navigation aids or procedures at a Government or licensed aerodrome.
So if any part of his approach or departure compromised this, he would have been bang to rights. I've no idea whether this is the case, but it's possible. To this you can add the other possibilities that he failed to get permission for the charitable flight per the AIC, and/or the CAA taking the view that the site constituted a 'congested area' and no permission had been sought.
Last edited by puntosaurus; 6th July 2005 at 05:58.